Thursday, March 06, 2014

Hey, look! They already had a mug shot!

In response to the rather noisy year so far in Naptown, the IMPD has resorted to a "Flood the Zone" defense, calling in reserves to handle normal patrol duties one area at a time while the cops who normally patrol that zone squad up and fan out to round up the usual suspects.

I don't know if last night is a result of this, but while serving a warrant at what is being described as a "known drug house" in the 'hood in southeast Indy last night, four cops got shot up by a frequent flier who was killed DRT by return fire. None of the officers were seriously injured, although two remain hospitalized, but the news has implied that there were some vest saves to thank for that.

As was hinted at by the collection of mug shots of the deceased in a previous post, a combination of the War on (Some) Drugs, a revolving-door justice system, the plague of avoiding trials by getting pleas for lesser charges, and an undermanned and -funded* PD creates the typical big city problem: There are a lot of people walking around who should really be in jail, and everybody knows it.

This year in Indy, they've been killing each other at a fairly brisk clip, but unfortunately the incidents known euphemistically as "NHI" (for "No Humans Involved") or "misdemeanor murders" still count against the city's homicide total and therefore there is a public outcry, fanned by the cheerleaders in the media, to Do Something. And so something gets done, and you get what we got last night.

Personally, I find it hard to get all hand-wring-y and do-something-ish about murders of the sort where the cops arrive and know the decedent by name, but maybe that's just me.

*But don't come whining to me for more funding when your spending priorities with what you do have are so whack.

26 comments:

Ancient Woodsman
said...

"We got probation, we got parole, we got community corrections, code enforcement, excise police. We have vice, we have narcotics, we have sex offender registry, we’ve got Marion County warrant division, traffic division, large numbers of units, local and state..."

The revolving door is a result of one basic problem- we have more criminals than we have places to put them away from the rest of us. This is entirely the fault of the public's choice of legislators, who pretty uniformly determine that a revolving door is good enough for the people who are typically victims of crime.

I take issue with the "undermanned and -funded* PD", even if it's an accurate description, as being a part of the problem.

By and large the Police catch the criminals- that's how we know who they are, innit? It's not Officer Friendly's- or Officer Fascist's- responsibility what happens after the evidence is gathered.

I take issue too with two thirds of "a revolving-door justice system" although that too is an accurate description.

One third of the system, the prosecutors and defence lawyers, do the job they have within the limits available.

One third, "Corrections" pretty much does the same. It's not the fault of probation and parole departments that they are required to correct the uncorrectable and supervise the wild.

The actual operators of the revolving door are the Judges, and they bear the responsibility. They administer the lie. They, more than almost anyone, are the "everybody" who knows there are "people walking around who should really be in jail", they are the ones who let them go back to the streets.

True, they are streets by and large full of poorand dark people whose votes can't be won or lost, so it's not like it matters.

Many a time I've heard Judges wail, "You belong in jail but the prisons are full..."

Instead of acting as the grease for the door, the Judges ought to be the sand. They kiss every ass they can find in order to get the job, then they refuse to do it.

Unless, of course, refusing to do it and being the grease IS the job...

We in the gun world tell ourselves that when they come to take our guns we will fight back (as suggested by Solzhenitsyn)and yet I bet many of you out there hypocritically are cheering for the cops. This is a preview of your future, guys. I believe it was Vin Suprynowicz who suggested that since we don't come to their aid we can expect no help from them. Them would be whatever, drug people, gay people, raw food people, etc. So, just talk quietly amongst yourselves until your turn finally comes.

"Many a time I've heard Judges wail, "You belong in jail but the prisons are full..."

Instead of acting as the grease for the door, the Judges ought to be the sand. They kiss every ass they can find in order to get the job, then they refuse to do it."

The blame for that lament shouldn't fall on the judges, either. In most cases, their hands are tied by the legislature, which has both passed laws limiting the prison population density and refused to spend the money to build enough prison space.

Of course, the real problem - also the fault of the legislatures - is that a) too many activities are crimes that shouldn't be (*cough* war-on-some-drugs), and b) too many of those shouldn't-be-crimes carry mandatory jail sentences, squeezing out the violent offenders whose crimes don't have prison time required by law.

More importantly, that there's no difference between me and a violent repeat offender?

See, it's not my knee-jerk cheering for the cops here that's the problem; it's your knee-jerk cheering for whoever the cops are arresting that keeps people from taking the Pro-Freedom movement seriously.

Just because that kid that gave you the swirly in high school grew up to become the cop that gave you a speeding ticket last week doesn't automatically turn every kiddie rapist or swastika-tattooed murderer the cops arrest into some kind of Robin Hood.

In California a recent court ruling on jail overcrowding forced Country Sheriffs to release some criminals back out into the street. In Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims simply responded with a shall issue policy for carry permits. Permits are valid statewide.

That said, I don't think most people that are generally anti-cop think that every diddler of kiddies or totenkopf laden curbstomper is Robin Hood, I think that most of the anti-cop folks think that the vast majority of the time, the cops choose softer targets than that in favor of arresting "Jamal, the guy over on 42nd who sells weed."

If we didn't have a War on Drugs or a whole raft of stupid gun laws, I'd probably be a lot less anti-cop, honestly.

Years ago I asked a freind on the local PD about rounding up the usual suspects locally. He said they preffered not to do that since the suspects have a tendency to get picked up for other crimes (traffic mostly) or turn themselves in for the food and shelter. Rewards get them turned in by friends and family.

We're going through that 'insufficient funding for the police' here the last few years; the politicians want to sound all LE-supporty, but they don't want to take money from any of the 'buy me votes' crap to pay for more cops, and- especially in this economy- they know what'll happen if they say "We need to raise your taxes." So, word games continue.

Yeah, trash most of the War On (some)Drugs, which will have the added benefit of infantry-minded 'cops' losing the opportunity to put in ninja suits and shoot the family pet. Or raid the wrong home. Or demand a warrant because "I smelled chemicals!" Which would probably result in a large drop in the number of people considering the cops abusive bastards who like to shoot things.

And reduce a lot of things from felony to misdemeanor.

Very true, some cops are serious jerks at best; that doesn't mean that all the people they go after are freakin' Robin Hood raiding the tax collector.

Bit of a tangent in re: Your final 'graph, (" I find it hard to get all hand-wring-y..."), several years ago I was at a briefing on "the terrorist threat to our industry", and there was a PowerPoint slide with mug shots of several goat humping third world baby murderers. Among the undearly departed in the group was one Leila Khaled. You should have heard the shrieks of outrage when someone referred to her as "The lady..." and I corrected her. "Your mis-using the word 'lady'..."

I get the impression that Libertarians are supposed to be agin' the death penalty. Sorry, some folks belong in jail, and some folks are better off dead, for the rest of us. Do it for the children!

That's an interesting question. We know that fugitives are people of regular habits, so that helps. All we have to know is-

When exactly will he be walking out to his car? Will he have wife, his little girl, and baby with him?

Will he have his model 29?

Will the wife?

Will that be the moment his neighbor comes over to return the garden shears?

Will a bus from the old people's home come by at that moment? The UPS truck?

Will the neighbors call him and tell him the cops are watching and waiting at his front and back doors?

Where exactly will they do all this waiting?

We try to eliminate variables because surprise means more danger. Not to say that arresting when he walks out is always bad, but it takes a lot more planning and manpower, and opens up a new panoply of risk.

"The blame for that lament shouldn't fall on the judges, either. In most cases, their hands are tied by the legislature, which has both passed laws limiting the prison population density and refused to spend the money to build enough prison space."

You note that I blame the legislators' bosses first. And I despise that "hands are tied" argument. A Judges' hands are NOT tied, he has an independent duty and responsibility to sentence within the law and justice. He is not the legislature. He should do HIS work, and not protect those who won't do theirs.

"Of course, the real problem - also the fault of the legislatures - is that a) too many activities are crimes that shouldn't be (*cough* war-on-some-drugs), and b) too many of those shouldn't-be-crimes carry mandatory jail sentences, squeezing out the violent offenders whose crimes don't have prison time required by law."

I'm a state crime prosecutor. I have never, not one single time, seen anyone given a sentence of actual confinement for a first offense personal use drug possession case.

Almost a quarter of the people in our state prison system are there for homicide, another 13% for rape and other sex offenses- mostly child rape and similar. Only 17% for drug felonies.

Am I thrilled about that 17%, no. Would I rather it were burglars and car thieves? Yes. But the WO(s)D isn't the main part of the problem.

Talk about wack budgets... Out here LVMPD constantly whines about not having enough $$$ when they have a massive handgun registration system (that should be preempted) that has never solved a crime and 8 Helicopters.

But they just shot a few more people this week so they must be doing something, right?

Staghounds, of the "17% for drug felonies", how many are due to plea deals (you know, we'll drop the armed robberies [enhanced with a gun] and you cop to a long stay for "possession for sales", but no violent convictions)? My limited experience in Calif found it very common.

"That's an interesting question. We know that fugitives are people of regular habits, so that helps. All we have to know is-

When exactly will he be walking out to his car? Will he have wife, his little girl, and baby with him?"

Is he actually at home at the moment? When will he be at home? Will his wife, his little girl, and baby be at home at the time of the raid?

"Will he have his model 29?

Will the wife?"

Will he have rifles, shotguns, and pistols stashed around the house? Will his wife know about them?

"Will that be the moment his neighbor comes over to return the garden shears?"

Did his neighbor come over to return his garden shears while the SWAT team was prepping? Did he get invited in for coffee?

"Will a bus from the old people's home come by at that moment? The UPS truck?"

No difference there.

"Will the neighbors call him and tell him the cops are watching and waiting at his front and back doors?

Where exactly will they do all this waiting?"

Both easily avoidable with just a little bit of investigation.

"We try to eliminate variables because surprise means more danger. Not to say that arresting when he walks out is always bad, but it takes a lot more planning and manpower, and opens up a new panoply of risk."

Instead, you try to arrest someone you claim to be extremely dangerous by forcing your way into his home, where he may have children, may have multiple weapons readily available, may have fortified positions set up in advance, where he knows the layout and choke points by heart, and may even believe he's defending his family from rival criminals who won't hesitate to kill even children and will react accordingly.

The attitude you're supporting is how innocents get killed. It's why Jose Gurena is dead, and it's just pure luck that his wife, child, and neighbors weren't killed by the police at the same time. The effort needed to answer the questions you raised is much less than what would be needed to answer my responses - and if you can't answer the questions I raised, why the heck are you going in blind? That's a recipe for disaster.

Just me, but if I'm going to be asked to go in "guns hot" and try to arrest a known violent felon, the last effing place on Earth I'm going to try and do that is inside his goddamned home, much less when he's got his family or possibly other innocents in there with him.

The only reason you'd choose to do it that way is so that you can play "tactical breach army dudes" and that is literally it.

SWAT teams have a great use - hostage situations. PERIOD.

The problem is that every department has one just for that reason, and now they want to use them - can't allow them to get our of practice.